Rebuttal to the “Intolerant God” Theory

One of the common arguments I see against God is some examples found in the Old Testament. Basically many will point out that God commanded His people to exterminate other peoples and that He seemed to favor the Hebrews above all other peoples. That this is very unlike the living God as portrayed in the New Testament and that this stark contrast proves that God is unjust. 

Let me proceed with a story. Imagine there was a man, let’s call him Joe, who lived in a rural area and he had a neighbor who had some extra unused land. Now these neighbors were friends to one another, and the neighbor had a lot of respect for Joe. Joe needed to use the neighbors land, so he went to him with a proposal to purchase it. The neighbor tells him, of course you can use it feel free, to which Joe replies, “We have been friends for a great many years, and I appreciate the offer, but I desire to purchase the land for a price and draft up a contract so that our children may continue to use it in peace.”  And so it goes that the agreement is made. 

Then Joe’s son, let’s call him George continues to use that land and also gets along with the neighbor and his children. George has two sons who are very competitive with one another.  Let’s name the older son Pete and the younger Tony. Now imagine that Pete gets himself into some trouble and decides to sell the land rights to Tony to which they write up an agreement. Now imagine that George ends up giving a valuable gift to Tony instead of Pete and Pete thinks it’s an injustice because Tony had not been entirely honest in how he had received it. Pete has not been honest either, but he feels that if Tony gets the rights to the land then he out to have received this other gift from their father, and now Tony has gotten both. The two brothers have a fight and Tony decides to leave for a time. 

While Tony is gone, Pete tells the neighbors lies about Tony, and Pete gives the neighbors permission to build homes on Tony’s land.  

Eventually Tony returns and has acquired a family and  tries to make things right with his brother. Now imagine his shock to find out the neighbors have moved in on his land.  However he realizes it’s a result of how he had treated his brother earlier and decides not to evict the neighbors. But he does let them know that he intends to use the land.  But understand the neighbors are still influenced by the lies that Pete told them, and tensions exist between the neighbors and Tony as a result. The relationship is already such that the neighbors are expecting to be taken advantage of. 

Now imagine that the neighbors have some business dealings with Tony’s sons and even though the transactions were fair the neighbors feel that they aren’t getting enough and that they are being treated as outsiders. 

But the story gets another twist. Imagine that one of the neighbors has taken a liking to one of Tony’s daughters. So one day this man gets some of his brothers and decides to push the matter and tells her how he feels. But she does not feel the same about him. In anger and frustration, and acting on an idea that it’s because he’s not being treated fairly, he proceeds to rape her, and his brothers aid in the act prevent her escape. Absolutely shocking and unthinkable. 

Soon everyone knows about it. Now Tony decides in an effort to keep peace with the neighbors, not to pursue legal action and even makes some compromises to the neighbors. Also imagine that the squatters don’t feel that what happened was wrong. Now the sons however are furious about the matter and don’t feel that justice is being done.  So without their fathers permission they take it upon themselves to drive out the squatters, and they burn down the houses, and forcibly evict the neighbors from the land. They also beat the ones involved in their sisters rape. 

The result is a full fledged feud.  The neighbors tell their other neighbors how they’ve been wronged and more of the neighbors become involved, and the matter finally ends up in the courts. The judge reviews all the information and decides that even though wrongs were made in both sides, that the land does belong to Tony, that the neighbors had no rights to be there. The matter of the rape is never prosecuted.

The matter seems resolved, but the hard feelings and animosity remain. A while later hard times come and Pete and his family decide to move their business and families.  They don’t sell their land however, they hope to come back one day. More time passes and circumstances prevented them from returning. But the next generation decides to return with deed in hand only to find that the children of their former neighbors have moved into their homes and built on their land and refuse to leave. 

While I have changed the names and circumstances, in a nutshell this is the story of the Israelites and their struggles with their neighbors the Canaanites (Philistines, Amorites, Edomites, Hittites, etc).   I’m not justifying wrongs on either side. But to those who thing that these wars weren’t justified, look at the circumstances. 

The Israelites may not be perfect but from their standpoint it was their land by rightful agreement. They wanted to live on their land and raise their families and worship as they pleased. The Canaanites were squatters, they knew it, and they wanted to gain rights to the land by taking what was not rightfully theirs. And while one could argue they were just practicing their religion, the two cultures are not very compatible. The Hebrew religion demands strict morality, honesty, chastity, and commands that men deal justly with one another (not saying the people always did so, but the religion itself demands it). By contrast, the Canaanite religion promoted promiscuity, dishonesty, open love, and largely adopted a might makes right attitude.  Canaanite practices included: baptism in blood, sexual activity with children, canibalism, sacrificing human beings, marriage by rape, partner swapping, abortion, the killing of unwanted children, etc. The moral superiority of one culture over the other is obvious, and the obvious causes for a culture clash are evident.

While one could argue that if that’s the only culture that they knew then how can they be judged for living what they were taught?  The answer is simple. They knew it was wrong but they did it because they knew they could get away with it. Or so they thought. It’s basic human knowledge to understand that you don’t treat other people in a way that you don’t want to be treated. Yet the Canaanite culture empowered the wickedness in their society.  People inherently understand that certain basic rights exist, and even if they are taught otherwise you will find that people inherently know that stealing is wrong, that killing is wrong, that violating another’s rights is wrong, that lying is wrong, etc.  the Canaanite cultures however did it anyway because they knew that gain could be had by doing so. 

In light of this is it any small wonder why God would instruct the Israelites to exterminate entire villages?  How else to you get rid of a culture so thoroughly corrupted?  One may say what about the innocent women and children?  Well, let’s be honest. If you had a city in our times of wicked men and you left the women and children, would they not teach their children those same ways and perpetuate that culture?  

Let me lay out some examples. If I raise my family in the culture of Las Vegas (as opposed to living there but protecting my family from its influence) should it be a wonder if my children do all the same things that many citizens of that city do? Should it come as a surprise if my daughter grow up to be prostitutes or showgirls?  Should it come as a surprise if my sons become gamblers?  They will know that these things are wrong, so they are not innocent, but they will have this engrained into their behavior. I would never be able to use the argument that they didn’t know better.  In fact they have probably witnessed firsthand the harm that such things cause. But they would engage in it because they have also been taught by that same society that they can get what they want by doing so. 

Myself I don’t condone warfare, but I can easily understand how it can be necessary to put an end to a culture that is so degraded and evil. The Lord must have felt that such measures were necessary.  I am not calling for such actions today. What I am saying is that those who claim that God condoned warfare, and that He was not a God of love and peace, and that He commanded a select group of people to wipe out another less favored group are ignoring the facts. 

Judging

I have often heard it said that we as Christians should not judge. That we are to be loving and tolerant and forgiving and accepting. But what does that mean anyway?  

To investigate this we must look at the circumstances under which this claim is most often cited and by whom it is mentioned. And to do this we are going to have to make a judgement for ourselves. And I think that's part of the distinction under which the commandment was given. 

Most often this is mentioned when something has happened and the consequences of someone's decisions are beginning to manifest. Then most often someone will make a remark that this is what happens in such cases and someone else will counter stating that we shouldn't judge. Now the particulars may change but more or less this is the general story. 

Now before I go saying who is right or wrong, let me generalize the types of characters usually involved in such cases.  The person who made a mistake is typically someone who is young and lacks life experience. The details of what mistake can vary greatly and really aren't important here.  

The person making the comment can vary greatly. It might be someone of a religious persuasion who is attempting to make a point or lesson using someone's mistake as an example. It could be a self righteous individual who is attempting to make themselves appear superior to others. It could be someone spreading gossip. Ultimately what matters is the motive. 

Now let's look at the person who says not to judge. They almost always fit into only one of two stereotypes. Either they are genuine, or they are justifying. They are coming from opposite extremes. But either way the person making such a comment has themselves made a judgement. Either they recognize person making a remark has done so unjustly and they are attempting to put a stop to slandering, or they are advocating the act and attempting to appear morally superior to someone else in the process. There really isn’t much middle ground. 

Now in any case motive is one of the most important matters, but let's make one thing clear. In any situation, we are always making a judgement. But what are we judging?  Let's be honest with ourselves. So far I have left out particulars because circumstances vary so wildly and my goal in this article is not to say that thus and so is right or wrong so much as I'm trying to teach a principle and bring out some truth. 

Those who say that Christ says not to judge are most often speaking of two entirely different things. Most often they leave out the entirety of what Christ actually said and the principle Christ was trying to teach which is contained in the context. 

So let's start with the context. In Christ's time you had classes of people, many different sects and denominations just as you find today.  And one of the things you had was that people rank themselves based upon how well they believed themselves to be keeping the Commandments relative to others.  So as a natural conclusion men would assume themselves to be better than others based upon the judgements they conclude just as they do today.  Now Christ was trying to teach a lesson here, that our methods of judging are not based on truth, but rather on moral relativity.

“And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?  And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.”  Matthew 19:16-17

Now an example of this. Let's take two young men, and one of them makes the mistake of stealing. Now we can look at this and most will agree that stealing is bad and the act is wrong. Now in this example one might also draw the outward conclusion that the boy who didn't steal is therefore morally superior to the one who did. 

But this might not be a correct conclusion. Notice that no context is given as to and of the circumstances surrounding the crime or the circumstances surrounding the second boy's innocence. We don't know the facts to make such a judgement beyond whether the act was right or wrong, in other words we don't have the information to judge either boy's character. 

What if we find out the boy who stole was in a very destitute state?  That doesn't make stealing right, but it does make his circumstances more understandable. What if we find out that the boy who didn't steal has not been put in such circumstances?  What if we find out that the only reason we know the one boy stole was because he confessed it and was trying to make it right?  What if we reversed the roles and found that given the same circumstances both boys would behave in the same way?  

And that's a part of the reality. It's easy for us to look at someone and say, if I was in their shoes I wouldn't have made that mistake. The reality is we aren't in their shoes, and in most cases we don't know how we would behave if we were. It's easy to place ones self on a moral high ground to judge someone in different circumstances than our own. What we ought to do is make the best decisions we can in the circumstances that we are in, and we need to be striving to help others. 

Now that doesn't mean we turn a blind eye to things that are wrong or justify evil under the banner of "not judging". Ignoring evil can cause incredible harm too.  If something is not right, in must be judged and acknowledged as such.  In my example the boy who stole did do wrong.  So how is this going to be resolved. If it is ignored or justified the behavior might continue.  Also others might decide that such behavior is acceptable. 

When the woman caught in adultery was brought before the Savior, He didn't justify her behavior. He firstly brought to light the false motives of her accusers, which caused them to leave in shame. But then He offered to the woman forgiveness on the condition that she repents. He acknowledges that she is guilty,  but He doesn't condemn her. 

But he doesn't ignore the matter either. He gives her an option by instructing her to "Go and sin no more".  He extends to her a compassion and understanding.  As a topic for another article, the story never tells what becomes of this woman, but one can very, very sure that her life will be very difficult, and Christ has a compassion and understanding of the hard road she has ahead. 

A lot has to do with our motives. The men who brought the woman before Jesus were trying to justify in their own hearts their feelings of moral superiority. They wanted to trick or trap Jesus by placing a moral dilemma before Him, and they clearly cared nothing for this woman.  But when Jesus showed what was really in their hearts, he showed that their pride had lifted them up. They were all guilty of something, many were guilty of the same or even worse.  

It is said in the scriptures that pride is the greatest of all sins. And pride defines our motives. In order to be lifted up in pride we must thing ourselves superior to others. If our judgements are based upon our pride, then as we are judging so shall we be judged. 

What is the gospel?

I see many people who ask what the gospel really is. I see many who ask how we can know what is true. I see many who ask why if there is a truth, why are there so many churches. 

I think this is an important question. And I think one of the reasons why there is so much controversy over the matter is because the purpose for the gospel gets glossed over, making it easy for men to capitalize with their own agendas and lead people astray. 

The simplest definition I have, the cleanest way to define it that I have found is this. "The gospel of Jesus Christ is the story of how God became God, and how we can apply a set of principles to become like Him."  In a nutshell that's what it is. It's goal is to teach us what actually makes God, God. Then by extension He has promised that if we follow His teachings we can be "joint heirs with Him". 

So in looking at any church or organization, let us ask "what does this church teach?"  If that church teaches us to feel good about who we are, that's not going to make you into a Godlike person. If a church teaches that ordinances save you, but does not require any actual repentance, that's not going to make you like Christ either. 

In order to become like God, you must first determine what His attributes are. To do that you must read and study the scriptures. You must study out what the prophets can teach us about Him. Then you must strive to apply those same principles into your life. 

Modern Feminism and Materialism

The link between modern feminism and materialism cannot be ignored. It plays a large role in where and why feminism has gone wrong. While feminism is hardly alone in this regard, materialism certainly has itself rooted very deeply into every facet of modern culture, and I will discuss that another time, it certainly has had a critical influence on how modern feminism has formed. 

In order to investigate this fully I think outlining the official definitions is important.  According to philosophybasics.com

"Feminism comprises a number of egalitarian social, cultural and political movements, theories and moral philosophies concerned with gender inequalities and equal rights for women. It is the doctrine advocating social, political and all other rights for women which are equal to those of men."

The basic idea is that women ought to have all the same basic rights as men.  On many points I agree with this. But I don't believe in a forced equality, and especially one where it robs women of their identity. 

And that is where modern feminism often fails women. It pulls the focus off women and puts it on materialistic pursuits. Wage equality, employment equality, the ability to serve military roles, the power to do what they want when they want, etc. if a woman wants these things that's fine, but most of these pursuits will pull a woman away from her natural womanhood. 

Feminism encourages women to pursue these things. But it discourages the pursuit of family life. Why because materialism is the driving creed of society and family pursuits are often in conflict with that. 

Now it may seem I'm grasping at straws here but I'm actually holding back and maybe I should stop doing so in this case. If you look at the popular and political advocates for feminism today at least in the United States you find plenty of examples in Hollywood, popular music, and politicians. This may seem to be unfair but like it or not this is the movements mascots. 

Let's look at what they promote.  They say women should use birth control because if they were to have a pregnancy and child it would interfere with their education and careers. If a woman does get pregnant she is encouraged to have an abortion because that child will interfere with her lifestyle. If she does want children, she should only pursue that later in life so that her career and personal pursuits in materialistic interests can take center stage. And she should not have more than one or two children because more would place too much of a burden on her (and society they argue, that's for another article).  And she ought to be free an independent. A women should not be married because that will restrain her ambitions. But if she is to marry she needs to assert her equality (which usually translates to dominance).  

I'm not saying all who claim to be feminists are adamant about all these issues. I'm saying the movement itself advocates these standards and it's really all about materialism.  Normally materialism teaches to acquire more wealth and possessions. This ideology takes mankind further from God and deeper into the selfish desires. But modern feminism takes this same step with a twist. It teaches that women are empowered by materialism and that they can use the fact that they are female as a means to do so. If anyone dares disagree, or try to convince women to forsake materialism, they turn it around and say that the naysayers are bigoted, backwards sexists. 

How Feminism is Anti-woman

An issue I wanted to touch upon today has to do with modern feminism. Now this may inflame some of my readers, but I ask that you can bear with me to the end of this. 

Today we have a movement that claims to empower women. A movement which claims women are equal to men and that women ought to have all the same rights and liberties as men. That women ought to make the same wages, that they should be given the same opportunities, and that they should be freed from the stigma of the past. 

Let me begin by saying that I am all for giving women the highest degree of respect, and that they should be given the opportunities they desire. But I also know that men and women are in fact different. Feminism tries to enforce an "equality" that is not in fact equal. 

Feminism is anything but feminine. The reality is that it's doctrines rob women of their womanhood. It does not empower women to be women. What modern feminism does is compare women to men and then attempt to make women more like men.  Feminism insists than not only can women do anything a man can, but that a woman is empowered by doing so. 

Don't believe this is the case?  Tell me why is it so important that a woman pursue a career?  Yet the stay at home mom is shamed by that same society. The feminist will applaud the working mother for the most part, but her success in their eyes is not measured in how much she actually nurtures her children but rather by pointing out that she has success in her career while raising a family.  

The feminist is encouraged to go out and follow her dreams. Travel the world, experience life, demonstrate strength, be a leader, etc. Thats the slogan. But if that woman wants to settle down, raise children, be a mother, then she is missing out on what the world has to offer. That is the approach the feminist movement takes.  

Why does this have to be?  If you look at feminism from earlier times it wasn't like this. The great women who fought for sufferage and other such causes were all pro-woman. Women were being robbed of just rights. But as time went on the movement shifted more and more towards this idea that women needed to be in the workplace. That such women were successful and happy. That truly powerful women can be better men than men, and ultimately that they don't even really need men anymore. There's the messy business about raising the next generation so men are grudgingly given some role.   

Many may say this version is painted as an extreme, but let me point out two facts. "Isms" tend to their respective extremes in terms of their goals. The second is this, that I've heard some popular feminists go way farther than I just did. People who take it to such an extreme that if science can make it possible that the roles of men and women could truly be reversed, or that women could reproduce without men.  Somehow this is treated as an ideal or goal. 

Feminism is an anti woman movement. It promotes the men vs women argument. It divides the human race. Just like the cause it claims to fight against, it subjugates one gender to promote the other. It promotes the female while attempting to rid itself off all that is distinctly feminine. It attempts to take masculinity away from the male and give it to the female, while stripping away anything that is distinctly masculine. As a whole it robs humanity. 

The Love of Hate

Today I would like to share with you a reality. This is an idea that permeates our modern popular culture. It is in the majority of music, it is depicted in movies, described in novels, and has infiltrated the modern ideas of love, marriage, romance, and the roles of men and women in our society. 

What am I getting in about?  Well think about it. How many of our cultures "love songs" are actually about love?  How many of them even attempt to describe two individuals learning to love, and to enjoy one another?  

No the reality is that most of these songs revolve around either someone wanting someone they can't have, someone proclaiming how much happier they are with a new partner, someone lamenting how their lover is gone, someone trying to convince someone else why they should be together, or someone boasting about how they've cheated. One of these scenarios describes the vast majority of what our culture calls love songs. In some cases they do try to demonstrate a devotion to an individual, which while an improvement, still doesn't depict what love actually is beyond the immediate infatuation. 

Because the majority of the people listen to music, watch movies, and indulge in other media that reinforces that view without ever actually teaching what love is, then the majority of people emulate the popular culture with disastrous results.  As a result many people tend to associate love with misery and heartache. The only enjoyment they see in it is the sexual pleasure, and maybe a temporary emotional satisfaction. A satisfaction for ones self. So in other words, what many call love is actually selfishness. 

There is very little regard for the feelings or needs of the other individual apart from what may secure future benefit for the self.  This is basically a great deal of indifference towards others. And indifference is only one step removed from hatred. Because many were never invested for the right reasons, all it takes to create bitterness and resentment is unfulfilled expectations, a misunderstanding, an argument, or a more enticing option, and what they once thought was love  turns into hurt, anger, and misery. 

And yet they persist in this course, to a large degree, because in most cases they haven't seen many, if any, examples of real love. The world has taught them this faux love, and taught them that the pain and hardship are part of it. Also selfishness is a natural tendency. Real love requires that we become selfless. That we give up the pride and ego. That we actually sacrifice for others. That we put away our vain ambitions, our selfish desires, and our need to "be right" and to justify our own position. 

My position on the popular culture is this. Don't listen to it. It brings nothing but pain and misery. The popular music will not bring you happiness. The popular movies will not bring you joy. And emulating the doctrines they teach will bind you down in misery. 

How to Empathize

In my last article, I don't want to leave the impression that I don't care about problems. Or that you act like you are in la la land when troubles arise. Doing that will concern those around you for sure. And I don't want to come across as that I don't care about people's struggles or that I think that problems shouldn't be discussed. 

My point was in that we can't focus on negativity. In the moment hard times are hard. And very often people need help and encouragement during those times. But it should not be the focus. There is a difference between explaining your situation or asking for help, versus complaining. 

When we complain, there is no resolution. Not that a resolution isn't possible, I mean that nothing gets resolved. Complaining usually serves one purpose, and that is an attempt to get pity. However pity really serves no useful purpose. To feel sorry for someone doesn't help them. It doesn't help us either. And to try to get pity doesn't help us. 

What I'm trying to get at is that we need to help people. And if we need help, we need to try to get it. We need to actually try to do something. One of the best ways I can explain this is by an example. 

If I am going through a hard time financially, and I need money, I have several options available to me. I can ask for help, I can try to do work to obtain more money, and I can try to make sure that I use whatever resources available in the best way possible. Now if I turn to someone and tell them my situation I need to do it for a useful purpose. If I am seeking advise, then I'm not complaining, I am trying to get help. If I ask for money, I'm not complaining, I'm asking for help. And if I'm trying to obtain work, I'm asking for help and demonstrating that I'm trying to help myself. But if I'm just trying to get sympathy or just trying to vent my frustrations, or I'm feeling sorry for myself, or I'm trying to blame someone else for my situation, none of that is helpful. It's just complaining and it's not useful to myself or anyone else. 

Now one area where we can help others is by doing this. When someone comes to us, and they are complaining, we need to examine our own role. We don't want to be dismissive, or come across that we don't care. What we want to do is help them. If the person is simply looking for pity or wanting you to agree that their problem is terrible, then we need to try to direct that to a more positive and productive energy.  Again by example, if I am on a job and someone complains that the job is terrible, isn't working well, or other negativity, we can try in whatever way to help that situation. I can bring up something positive in the situation, like what a nice sunny day it is, or offer to help them in some way. Try not to be dismissive, but don't feed attempts to fish for pity.  Smile. And don't let them drag you into that negativity.  Be understanding. 

When someone complains to me, and I start also complaining back, talking about how my own life is so hard, that life is just hard, and basically agree with them, not only does it not help them. It actually in many ways pulls the focus away from them and their problem and places it on myself. I have not only failed to help them, but have actually hindered both them and myself. In contrast, if I share with them my experience in that area and then offer advise, or a solution, and reassure them that I know what they are going through, now I have become a help to them.  I have helped them not only with the immediate problem, but as a whole have become a positive influence.

My own experience is that our society is geared towards this negativity. From the time we are very young, society at large has been teaching us to think and behave this way.  The reason it matters to try to become aware of this and try to overcome it is that if we are constantly complaining, we can be grateful and appreciative. We can't see the benefit of adversity. We don't learn the lessons. It stagnates our own growth and limits our full potential.

Freedom vs Bondage

It has been a while since I've written anything. I've been trying to decide how to express my next article regarding Adam and Eve (Havah) and who they are, and why that matters. I will get to that, but for now I have decided to take a break from that topic and instead discuss another matter. 

In this post I'm going to share some personal experiences so that you can get to know me, and perhaps learn why I view things the way I do. In this case, I'm going to discuss a situation that vividly demonstrates the difference between freedom and bondage in a way that perhaps you might not have considered before. 

I used to work for a company that installed furnaces and air conditioners. While I worked there I worked with a guy who was offended by my overall optimistic attitude. (I was in fact going through some struggles, but that's another story).  For example, when asked how I was doing, when I would respond that things were great, he would view it as a lie or an outward show, as though I was trying to be superior.   When I would ask how he was, or how things were going in his life he would usually respond with a negative comment, like how things could be worse, or the issues he was having with his wife, or kids, or how terrible the job was, and that he wouldn't be able to enjoy life till he was too old to enjoy it.  Nevertheless, this guy choose to leave me alone, and I had no success with trying to encourage him to be more positive. 

I later worked for another company as a service plumber and worked with another guy that was similar, only more persistent. For example, I don't swear. By that I mean don't even think it. In fact in contrast to himself, my reaction to frustrating circumstances is very calm and composed.  This really aggravated this guy, and he made it a mission to try to get under my skin and make me swear. I'm serious, he told me to my face that one day he was going to make me mad and that I was going to curse and swear and that I would feel so much better by getting it all out.  And so he kept trying, though he would back off when I let him know that I didn't appreciate it and that he had crossed the line. He never did succeed. 

Another thing is that I would greet customers with positivity, even though our being there was because they usually had a plumbing problem, so they probably weren't having the best day. I always believed that by being helpful and friendly that I could help them. One day this same coworker told me that I should empathize with them by talking about how terrible these problems are. That I should talk about things that go wrong, and that I too have things pretty bad. As though by talking about negativity, that it helps cement a friendship with the customer.  As if to suggest my upbeat positive attitude makes people feel worse and makes me seem unrelatable to most people. 

Now both of these individuals have something in common. Both of them believed that they were free. They believed they were free to express themselves verbally, as well as by behavior. That being able to curse, and swear, and dress as they please, and do as they please, is freedom. Indeed this is a common attitude. Many look at me and think that I must have been brainwashed, and am therefore not free. That my religion and upbringing restricts me. 

And yet when you take a step back and look at the different outcomes in their lives, a pattern emerges. The fruits if you will.

One of the obvious problems, is that both these individuals are fundamentally unhappy. Oh sure they may think they are happy at least some of the time. But their complaining is the outward sign that they are actually unhappy, and they choose to blame external factors.  They are unhappy in their marriages, unhappy in their friendships, unhappy with their jobs, etc. 

Their thought patterns, behaviors, speech, and reactions are all based upon the natural impulses of the body. They are governed almost entirely by their emotions in a raw ungoverned form. When they see an attractive member of the opposite sex, they lust after them. When they see something they like, they impulsively indulge in it. When something irritates them, they explosively act out in anger, cursing and swearing. In short, they are slaves to their natural behaviors. And every time they act based upon their natural impulses, they become increasingly unable to act any differently.

In contrast, someone who has learned to govern themselves is actually more free. I can only speak for myself, but when I get frustrated (yes, I'm still human), I don't impulsively act out in anger. I don't yell at people in an angry tone, or throw things. Instead I examine the situation and consider what can I do about it?  I will honestly express my opinions, but I'm not going to throw a fit. If I can constructively improve the situation, then I will do that, and will have learned to conquer something in the process. If I can't change anything, I can still learn from the experience, and try to do better next time. Regardless, I can choose to be positive and happy even in frustrating circumstances because it betters me as a person. 

That is the fundamental difference. These other individuals are ultimately unhappy, and have chosen to become victims of their own circumstances. They do not take responsibility for their own lives, and have become a slave, unable to be freed. They have hinged their happiness upon external circumstances, which can never be satisfied. By constraint, I have chosen to be happy, to take control of the only thing I can control, which is myself, which makes me the master, and as such I am free. Those in bondage look upon those who are free and desire the happiness that truly free people enjoy, but they cannot have it because they have not learned the means by which it is obtained. Instead they become angry that they cannot have it, they cannot in their current condition understand that people can actually be happy. 

I'm not saying or trying to give the impression that I am perfect, or that I am in any way superior.  I make mistakes. But I try to learn, and am striving to always better and perfect myself. Complaining has never brought me happiness, and I doubt it has ever brought anyone else happiness either. I want to be happy, so why should I choose a behavior that doesn't make me happy?  Why should I be angry if I want to be happy? And if I was unhappy, why should I desire that others be unhappy too?

If I learn something from every experience, then I am growing and progressing and becoming more like God. This is a good life. Enjoy it!!!